Common features of cartilage maturation are not conserved in an amphibian model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mouse, chick, and zebrafish undergo a highly conserved program of cartilage maturation during endochondral ossification (bone formation via a cartilage template). Standard histological and molecular features of cartilage maturation are chondrocyte hypertrophy, downregulation of the chondrogenic markers Sox9 and Col2a1, and upregulation of Col10a1. We tested whether cartilage maturation is conserved in an amphibian, the western clawed frog Xenopus tropicalis, using in situ hybridization for standard markers and a novel laser-capture microdissection RNAseq data set. We also functionally tested whether thyroid hormone drives cartilage maturation in X tropicalis, as it does in other vertebrates. RESULTS: The developing frog humerus mostly followed the standard progression of cartilage maturation. Chondrocytes gradually became hypertrophic as col2a1 and sox9 were eventually down-regulated, but col10a1 was not up-regulated. However, the expression levels of several genes associated with the early formation of cartilage, such as acan, sox5, and col9a2, remained highly expressed even as humeral chondrocytes matured. Greater deviances were observed in head cartilages, including the ceratohyal, which underwent hypertrophy within hours of becoming cartilaginous, maintained relatively high levels of col2a1 and sox9, and lacked col10a1 expression. Interestingly, treating frog larvae with thyroid hormone antagonists did not specifically reduce head cartilage hypertrophy, resulting rather in a global developmental delay. CONCLUSION: These data reveal that basic cartilage maturation features in the head, and to a lesser extent in the limb, are not conserved in X tropicalis. Future work revealing how frogs deviate from the standard cartilage maturation program might shed light on both evolutionary and health studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".